Grand Valley State University

A History of Sarcasm: Effects of Balanced Use of
Sarcasm in a Relationship
Joel Mounts
Grand Valley State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/honorsprojects
Recommended Citation
Mounts, Joel, "A History of Sarcasm: Effects of Balanced Use of Sarcasm in a Relationship" (2012). Honors Projects. Paper 155.
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/honorsprojects/155

This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Research and Creative Practice at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact
scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

Running Head: A History of Sarcasm
A History of Sarcasm:
Effects of Balanced Use of Sarcasm in a Relationship
Joel Mounts
Grand Valley State University
.

becoming more appropriate ( Kreuz. sarcasm has
been shown to be victimizing. Coppenrath. We conclude that a history of sarcasm in a relationship does not
reduce its negative valence. the reported valence (or emotional value) of sarcasm improves dramatically
when two members of a conversation share some common ground (knowledge. However. For instance. Kassler.
.A History of Sarcasm
2
Abstract
We often think of sarcasm as a way to be mean—and it usually is. offensive. To test the hypothesis that the balanced use
of sarcasm can similarly improve its valence. we examined differences in pragmatic uses and
impressions of sarcastic dialogues. perceptions &
experiences). understandable
(Pexman & Zvaigzne 2004). with either a balanced (two sarcastic speakers) or unbalanced (one
sarcastic speaker) use of sarcasm. and memorable (Gibbs 1986). & Allen 1999). and anger-provoking to its targets (Toplak & Katz 2000. Bowes
& Katz 2011).

victimizing. ironic) when the
amount of ridicule is increased (Lee & Katz 1998). Link & Caucci
2008). For example.
biting and pain-inflicting. The findings of research on sarcasm are therefore not
surprising: sarcasm is seen as offensive. not everyone reacts to sarcasm in the same way. sarcasm is a specific form of irony meant to be sharp. hostile humor—of which sarcasm is an
example— has been found to induce better moods (ratings of forgiving-kindly and refreshed-pleased)
. and were less
empathetic of the listener’s emotions when sarcasm was used as opposed to other forms of irony (e. asking participants to rate a variety of functions from the listener. Leggitt & Gibbs (2000) found that participants sympathizing with the speaker’s role were
unaffected by the negative emotions inflicted on listeners with sarcastic comments. sarcasm can be viewed as humorous in certain regions
(Dress et al.A History of Sarcasm
3
If a friend sarcastically compliments your looks (‘you look great!’). As just mentioned. and even anger-provoking (Bowes & Katz 2011). Toplak & Katz (2000)
manipulated the conversational role in scenarios where a speaker used a sarcastic remark against a
listener.g. it seems reasonable that it can be used
positively in some contexts. subjects rate passages as more sarcastic (vs.
Given the differences in understanding sarcasm. Participants in Northern states (upstate New York) are more likely to complete
scenarios with sarcastic lines than those from Southern states (Tennessee). speaker.
Interestingly though. the speaker was more likely to see them as positive and humorous. After the induction of angry moods. Sarcasm is also understood differently depending on
regional culture. They found that while listeners (or victims) of sarcastic barbs were likely to
see them as critical. Kreuz. In a similar
study. or incidental
overhearer’s point-of-view.
rhetorical questions and understatement). with Northern participants
interpreting sarcasm more in terms of humor than those from the South (Dress. 2008). are you offended? Or is it
funny? And would your friend feel the same way? While irony is simply language meant to be
understood differently than what is literally said..

Rafaeli & Schwarz-Cohen 2011).A History of Sarcasm
4
(Berkowitz 1970) and a cathartic purge of hostility and anxiety (Dworkin & Efran 1967) in participants as
compared to nonhostile humor. An analysis of sarcastic expressions on TV programs
found that speakers altered their facial expressions by rolling or widening their eyes. For
example. Ciceri. in which the speaker refers to perceptual knowledge shared with the
listener. Nonverbal cues such as winking and nodding
can also assist in the communication of sarcasm. analysis of sarcastic utterances by
naïve speakers indicate that they reliably use acoustic cues or voice inflections to distinguish sarcasm
from neutrality and sincerity. you might decode it in one of two ways: either literally—that is.
Without any previous knowledge. sarcasm can often be differentiated from literal language
simply through verbal and nonverbal communication.g. most relevant to this study.
Yet despite its possible positive implications. Furthermore. the speaker
thinks you look good—or ironically—that is. when someone sarcastically
says ‘you look great’. Physical co-presence. the speaker thinks you look bad. Hay & Poggi
2003). and lengthening of syllables (e. For instance..
through sharing common ground with the listener. such as increased vocal range and pitch. and. In light of this problem of
interpretation. and
especially by flattening their facial expression to communicate sarcasm (Attardo. is also assumed to play a large role in understanding of sarcasm (Clark & Marshall 1981). Eisterhold. & Infantino 2000). the counterfactual nature of sarcasm introduces a
problem with decoding such that it is often misunderstood. there are a number of ways that a speaker can assure that sarcasm is properly
understood: through verbal cues. ‘you look great!’ might be clearly understood as sarcastic if you arrived to a formal dinner in
muddy sweatpants: both you and the speaker know that you don’t look great. Efrat-Treister. smirking. contextual cues. sarcasm has also been found to stimulate creative
thinking and the solving of complex problems in real-life situations (Miron-Spektor. For instance.
. nonverbal cues.
Cheang & Pell 2008 and Anolli.

& Allen. With no background knowledge. shared experiences. Gibbs (1986) presented subjects with stories ending with a
sarcastic remark which either echoed (that is. more
understandable. the incongruence between his statement and your knowledge of his
beliefs might be enough for you to recognize his sarcasm. in turn. 1999).
However. no study to date has investigated these known effects of common ground between
listener and speaker in the context of a dyadic relationship with a balanced use of sarcasm. has been suggested as a vital component of
understanding sarcasm: imagine a stranger who. or those with common ground. Coppenrath.
Pexman & Zvaigzne (2004) presented participants with situations involving two characters with a target
statement (ironic or literal) by one character at the end of each. and more polite. you might
reasonably expect their stance to be literal. adamantly voices their opinions
on the potential horrors of marijuana legalization. Kassler. Research has supported this conclusion. and found that sarcastic comments
made in solidarity relationships. Similarly. if a friend who ran of popular pro-legalization
campaign voiced the same opinion.A History of Sarcasm
5
Sarcasm appears to be especially accepted and understood when the speaker and listener have
some rapport—that is.
. perceptions and knowledge—referred to as ‘common
ground’ (Clark & Marshall 1981) Common ground. a study with a similar setup in which participants
read scenarios ending in a single ironic or nonironic phrase found that common ground makes sarcasm
more appropriate (Kreuz. They manipulated familiarity of the
relationship such that there was either solidarity or no solidarity. common ground
between participants—were more memorable. It could be
that sarcasm is more appropriate and polite (for example) in a relationship with common ground simply
because of previous uses of sarcasm. Finally. reference) or didn’t echo previous shared information. However. were more humorous.
They found that sarcastic comments which echoed shared information—that is. in casual conversation.

rather than a single aggressive actor. anger and
offense) in the second part of each dialogue (see Appendix B for example questions).e. It was
.
it uses realistic multi-actor exchanges as opposed to single-actor statements focused on in previous
research. While most studies have presented participants with a situational vignette ending with a
single sarcastic line. while the second actor responds without sarcastic language. Secondly. vignettes were created based on the material of Bowes & Katz (2011) in which both
actors use sarcastic language in aggressive dialogues. That is. both actors in the dialogues use sarcastic
language towards each other at different times. this study is the first to feature a balanced use of sarcasm within a
relationship. anger & annoyance). is the actor of interest. created specifically for this study. This
second actor. pragmatics (verbal aggressiveness and criticalness). We use this schema to
improve on ecological validity. no such
relational history (see Appendix A for an example experimental dialogue). To answer this question. In a control condition. and feelings (annoyance. and the second
responds with sarcastic language.
To this end. Lastly. the current study seeks to discover whether the valence of the sarcastic speaker’s mood
and intentions improves within a balanced sarcastic relationship. First. Bowes & Katz (2011) recently created a more realistic vignette with a two-actor
dialogue.A History of Sarcasm
6
Thus. He is the actor who is speaking
sarcastically with a relational history of sarcasm behind him—or. aggressiveness & criticalness) in participant
observers while improving the perceived affect of sarcastic speakers (i. the study
builds on previous work in three ways.e. In the second part.
participants were instructed to answer questions about the critical actor’s intentions (to be humorous
and hurtful). it investigates a possible situation in which common
ground can reduce sarcasm’s negative impressions (i. the first actor continues the
argument using sarcastic language. in the control condition. In response to the vignettes. In the first part of each dialogue—taken directly
from Bowes’ & Katz’s material— the first actor brings a complaint to the second. the second actor responds with aggressive but
literal language. in the second part of the dialogue. where questions were asked about specific actors in the dialogue.

actor A either uses sarcastic language (experimental condition. By
painting sarcasm in a universally negative light.. Each dialogue was split into two parts. featuring the same actors in both (for
reference. As in their material.71). popular perceptions may at times rule out its beneficial
use. The dialogues had comparable
numbers of words. Most were freshmen (n=36). five in the first and five in the second part. Participants were given class credit for their participation. and less annoyed. with dialogues in the experimental condition averaging 161.
Each dialogue had twenty lines total.5 words apiece. i. followed by sophomores
(n=8) and upperclassmen (n=6).
Vignettes consisted of conversational dialogues between two actors. with ten in the first part and ten in the second.e. In part 1. dialogues were limited to male actors to control for the
presence of known gender effects.
Participants were 50 undergraduate students from introductory psychology classes (31 F.
Materials.25 words apiece.
We hope that this work will contribute to an improved perception of the use of sarcasm by
illustrating a case where its use is more appropriate less negative than conventional studies show.
. actors A and B). adapted from the material of
Bowes & Katz (2011). 19 M)
whose average age was 20 years old (SD= 1. Each actor
therefore had ten lines.
Method
Participants. angry and offended than
those participants in the control condition. such that sarcasm amongst males is more acceptable and expected
(Colston & Lee 2004). and
dialogues in the control condition averaging 159.A History of Sarcasm
7
hypothesized that participants in the experimental condition (where a history of sarcasm was present)
would rate this key 2nd actor as less aggressive and critical.

participation in a group project. Each question was presented on
a 7-point likert scale for ease of comparisons. Toplak & Katz (2000) found that ‘overhearers’.. appropriateness (Kreuz. I didn’t take your stupid Mp3 Player‘) towards actor B. driving home drunk. Kassler. both
verbally and in the written instructions. with actor A initially
aggressive toward actor B due to the theft of an mp3 player.. will be used.e. and picking on his brother.
Thus. ‘How appropriate was MARK in part 2 of the dialogue?’). A total of 16 vignettes.
. anger. See Appendix A for an example of an
experimental dialogue..
Reactions to these sarcastic dialogues were assessed through questions developed by
other researchers of irony and sarcasm.
‘Listen idiot.A History of Sarcasm
8
‘Listen Sherlock. actor B uses sarcastic
language towards actor A (i. See Appendix B
for an example of the questionnaire. these vignettes portray a realistic conversation between two people. are likely to see negative ironic comments as indicating a close relationship. In order to heighten the impression of a longitudinal relationship. Allen & McLain. these questions did not ask participants to sympathize with a specific
conversational role. In order to heighten the
perception of a close relationship. spreading a rumor
about him. 8 in each condition.e. The
topics of the dialogues are varied to account for a wide range of possible scenarios. I didn’t take your precious Mp3 Player’) or literal language (control condition.) (Topak & Katz. that part 1 occurred some time after part 2. These questions were presented on the page opposite the
vignettes. the words
‘some time later…’ were put between parts 1 and 2 of the dialogues. Participants were also told. 1999). etc. criticalness. 2000). joking
derisively about what he’s wearing. with the roles of sarcastic
speaker switching between part 1 and 2. failing to invite him to a party.e. ‘I found my MP3 player in your bag. In part 2. and asked participants to assess sarcasm of specific actors. cheating on a test.
Coppenrath. or those not directly participating in
a dialogue. i. thanks so much for lying to me’ ). and were customized to specific dialogues to ensure
consistency (i. speaker intentions (intention to be humorous and to hurt) and state
of mind (aggressiveness.

SD=1.6 minutes). p<. 2) a random condition of all 8 vignettes. SD=1.A History of Sarcasm
9
Procedure. verbal aggressiveness. Overall.12). benefits.001. or anger. and 3) a facing question page
containing dependent variable measures.e.10. p<. and presented the purpose of the study
as one relating to argumentative language.. no
significant differences were found between the two groups on ratings of the aggressive speaker’s
appropriateness. Participants in the experimental condition (balanced use of sarcasm) rated the sarcastic speaker of
the dialogues as less offended (i.
t(300)=16. criticalness.53. After the participants are finished they were given a written
debriefing form which addressed the consent form’s deceit and detailed the nature of the study.30. After signing the consent form. SD=2. annoyance. SD=1. Participants read and signed a
consent form which detailed risks. However.
participants in the experimental condition rated the aggressive speaker in Part 1 of the dialogues as
much more sarcastic (M=6.94). indicating that participants appropriately picked up on the experimental
manipulation.15.10) than participants in the control condition (M=3.
Results
Mean survey scores across the eight dialogues were compared using an independent samples ttest . with
anywhere from 4 to 14 participants participating in any given session.
The experiment took place in a single-session visit in which participants completed the study at
their own pace (mean completion time: 21.05. participants were given
packets containing 1) a cover sheet with instructions and prompts for demographic information (gender.92) than participants in the
control condition (no history of sarcasm) (M=4. ‘Was Andy offended?’) (M=4. t(398)=-2. Participants were tested as a group. humorous intention.
.
class standing.94. and age).57. and confidentiality.

The decreased
level of perceived offense could have been due to the fact that the sarcastic actor in the control
condition—where sarcasm hadn’t been used before in the relationship— displayed a novel form of
aggressive language compared with the first part of the dialogue. annoyance. could have resulted in a more realistic impression of sarcasm as consistently negative
despite its balanced use.A History of Sarcasm
10
Discussion
Subjects were presented with one of two different sets of dialogues: one in which the actor of
interest used aggressively sarcastic language toward another who had used it earlier (experimental). However. However. in
light of the lack of other findings. in comparison to previous studies on common-ground
effects of sarcasm.
We further expected a decreased level of perceived anger. our findings show that participants didn’t
differentiate between most of these factors in rating the aggressively sarcastic actor. including realistic conversational dialogues and the more
. and this is what we found. Therefore. This finding could suggest several things. and an increased level of appropriateness and humorous intention in ratings of the
aggressive actor in the experimental condition. we suggest that future studies investigate the effects of common
ground across a number of measures.
We expected that participants in the experimental condition would perceive the sarcastic actor
as less offended than participants in the control condition.
the previous use of sarcasm may have normalized its use as an aggressive linguistic tool. and
one in which the actor used aggressively sarcastic language toward someone who had used aggressive
but literal language before (control). with speakers
seeming to display negative affect like annoyance and anger.
The improved ecological validity of this study. While the aggressive actor’s
exchanges allowed for negative emotions and intentions to be perceived in the experimental condition. we hesitate to interpret this effect in support of our hypothesis. criticalness and verbal
aggressiveness. sarcasm is consistently seen as aggressive and critical. This leads us to
conclude that a history of sarcasm in a relationship doesn’t mute its negative effects—despite its
occurrence in a relationship.

it doesn’t take the edge off of sarcasm used aggressively toward another actor in a
dialogue. This could provide valuable information on
how to compare our results to classical studies of sarcasm. may be incorrect. While actors’ common ground makes sarcasm more appropriate and
understandable. It might be interesting for future studies to employ
longitudinal methods to try to discover any point in a relationship at which sarcasm does become more
appropriate to use.
Our results experimentally rule out an important factor in an established literature on
irony and sarcasm.
. our assumption that the balanced use of sarcasm constitutes common ground. so
that sarcasm in normalized after being used by one actor. This is suggested by the fact
that no differences were found in ratings of appropriateness between the two conditions.A History of Sarcasm
11
conventional scenarios ending with a single sarcastic line.
Alternately. this
provides an interesting finding in light of our results: sarcasm doesn’t seem to become more appropriate
after a single occurrence in a relationship. However.

TOM: Oh.
TOM: I don’t want to get in trouble. I’m leaving. I love cheating off of idiots.
ADAM: What a scary threat. I’m always cheating.
PART 2 (Some time later…)
TOM: Hey. it was a fluke. I studied pretty hard.
ADAM: Yea.
TOM: Oh no! I wanted to talk to you all day.
ADAM: I’m going to leave if you keep it up. you’re going down with me. really?
ADAM: Yeah.on the test. I would risk getting caught by cheating off of you because you are such a
genius. I saw you
ADAM: You’re right. I heard you got a D.
ADAM: You’re right.
TOM: I probably should have copied your answers.
.
ADAM: I thought I’d do better. I’m a smart guy.
TOM: Yea right.
ADAM: I am so sorry.
ADAM: Look.
TOM: I can’t fail this class and I don’t want you to do it again.
TOM: If I get in trouble.
ADAM: Alright.
TOM: Just admit that you did it. Einstein.A History of Sarcasm
12
Appendix A: Sample Dialogue
PART 1
TOM: You cheated off of my test. Great job.